Insurer priority dispute; Role of the Michigan Property & Casualty Guaranty Association (MPCGA); MCL 500.7911; Young v Shull; Auto Club Ins Ass’n v Meridian Mut Ins Co; “Covered claim”; MCL 500.7925(1); MCL 500.7931(3); Purpose of the Guaranty Act; Yetzke v Fausak; Coordination of benefits under the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act; MCL 418.354; Smitter v Thornapple Twp; Motion for administrative stay under MCL 418.841(1); Westchester Fire Ins Co v Safeco Ins Co

[This opinion was previously released as an unpublished opinion on 11/9/21.] The court held that the trial court properly ruled that appellant-Home-Owners was the first-priority insurer in this matter and that appellee-MPCGA was the insurer of last resort. It also held that the trial court did not err by denying Home-Owners’ motion to stay. The insured was injured while getting out of a semitruck during his employment. He was receiving workers’ compensation benefits when his employer’s workers’ compensation carrier became insolvent. The MPCGA assumed responsibility for his claim and refused to pay him benefits under the worker’s compensation policy, instead finding that Home-Owners, as the no-fault insurer of the semitruck, had priority. The trial court granted summary disposition for the MPCGA, agreeing that Home-Owners had priority, and that its motion to stay the case was moot. On appeal, the court found Home-Owners was first in priority, noting that when the workers’ compensation carrier became insolvent and the insured could no longer collect benefits under that policy, he “could turn to Home-Owners’ no-fault insurance policy for benefits. In other words, the MPCGA was entitled to a ‘credit,’ i.e., a reduction in its obligation, to the extent Home-Owners was available to pay” the insured benefits. “Simply put, the MPCGA can only be an insurer of last resort and, therefore, cannot be the first-priority insurer ahead of” Home-Owners. In addition, this decision precluded double recovery by the insured. The court also rejected Home-Owners’ argument that the trial court erred by denying its motion for an administrative stay, finding the issue was “not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Board of Magistrates.” Affirmed.